click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121129
20121207
STATION
CNNW 14
MSNBCW 12
FBC 8
CNBC 6
MSNBC 4
CNN 1
LANGUAGE
English 53
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 53 (some duplicates have been removed)
their bills. let's remember where this deficit came from. it came from the iraq war run off budget. it came from a financial crisis that rewarded a lot of executives who are still paying low capital gains tax. >> there's a fabulous article on the front page of "investor's business daily" which i recommend to you. a fabulous article. i'm going to talk about it on tomorrow's radio show about the benefits of the bush tax cuts which by the way generated higher revenues. let's not go there tonight. >> for who, though? >> for everybody. in fact, the middle class -- >> that's why median wages actually dropped this year? >> just look at the numbers that obama uses. if you repeal the top tax rates you're supposed to make 800 billion. if you repeal the whole bill you're supposed to lose 4.5 trillion. it all went to the middle class. i got to challenge your facts on that. that went to the middle class. but do you think right now that there is a chance, i mean responding to what peter said, do you think that obama is going to cold shoulder the gop? here's why i'm saying this. let me just go one more th
the deficit, create jobs. so we know we have to have growth. we know we have to make cuts. we know we have to have revenue. you can't get from here to there without it. so if you read closely what they have in their letter, even though it's bare bones, you have voucher rising of medicare, you have a return to the ryan budget, which priorities are not priorities that i think the american people share. >> rates, can there be a deal done with the rates not going up? >> no. i'm an appropriator for a long time in the congress. we used to have an expression. it's not the price. it's the money. this is not to be punitive on the people who make over $250,000. it's just to be fair to the entire country. you need that additional revenue in order to reduce the deficit and continue to make investments in growth. >> if speaker boehner says that, you know, we're not going to move on the rates, where are we? >> i hope that's just a bargaining position. but the fact is we have talked about it two step. do a down payment on cuts, on investments and on revenue this year and then in the next year, take the t
in a winner and a loser. >> our ultimate goal is an agreement that gets our long-term deficit under control in a way that is fair and balanced. >> if the president really wants to reach an agreement, he needs to be talking with members of his own party, right here in washington, trying to broker an agreement. not out there firing up crowds and giving speeches. >> we all know that we've had this spending crisis coming at us like a freight train. and it has to be dealt with. in order to try to come to an agreement, republicans are willing to cut revenue on the table, but it's time for the president and democrats to get serious about the spending problem that our country has. >> but the point is, there is no economic growth being discussed in the fiscal cliff argument, the solution -- there is no economic growth. not possible with what's being proposed. in fact just the exact opposite. obama does not care about economic growth. he cares about wealth transfers, redistribution. >> it's obvious that he's going to have to stand behind some significant changes in entitlements, and i think what they
the white house in 1988. but just two years later, the reagan deficits were skyrocketing and president bush was forced to change his most famous line. >> long and bitter battle over the budget officially ended last night. president bush put his signature on the deficit reduction package, including $140 billion in tax increases. >> tax increases. that was a turning point for the modern republican party. the right wing went crazy. and george bush lost re-election. since then the party's been committed to never compromising on the tax issue, no matter the deficit. no congressional republican has voted for an increase in taxes since 1990. think about it. for nearly a quarter of a century, no new income taxes. in the current congress, 236 house republicans vowed never to raise taxes. 40 gop senators also kept that pledge. even president george w. bush, the man who got us into two wars we didn't pay for. the president who exploded our deficit. he insisted the solution to our problems were more tax cuts. president clinton handed him a $236 billion surplus. a surplus. and left office with a $1.2 tr
, a lot of the other issues surrounding deficit reduction are going to be a whole lot easier. if we get this wrong, the economy is going to go south. we don't have a lot of time here. we have a few weeks to get this thing done. we could get it done tomorrow. optimistically, i don't think we are going to get it done tomorrow. >> the white house is using all social media resources to get the message out and put pressure on the republicans. >> today, i'm asking congress to listen to the people who sent us here to serve. i'm asking americans all across the country to make your voice heard. tell members of congress what a $2,000 tax hike would mean to you. call your members of congress, write them an e-mail, post it on their facebook walls. you can tweet it using the hash tag my 2 k, not y2 k. >> the president was laughing about you the strategy, seriously effective. the my2k was one of the top trends on twitter all day long. republicans aren't too happy. they are getting outflanked. >> if the president wants to reach an agreement, he needs to be talking with the members of his own party rig
but used that money for deficit reduction because he believed that would control the economy. president clinton did listen to him. and i'll tell you, i talked to bob rubin about that anecdote where clinton says you tell me a bunch of bond traders control the economy -- i'm paraphrasing -- and rubin said, yes, i am. i asked him about that once a couple years ago, and he said it was true. it wasn't as dramatic woodward made it out to be, but it did has happen. but you didn't get that out of geithner. you kind of don't think you'll get that out of lew. he's very much aligned intellectually with president obama particularly on the notion of fairnesses. you know, you talk to economistses. should we really be raising taxes now? no. hour hour tax increases, we're going to lose the deductions -- >> probably shouldn't be cutting that much. the economy is like in a very weird state right now, kind of like i think the notion is to grow it now, you know? and, you know, this guy doesn't see that. he sees raising taxes not as an economic efficiency so to speak, but as you know, you don't get a lot of
't raise enough taxes to completely deal with the deficit. and you do have to do reforms. you need to reform the tax system. you certainly need to make additional cuts. i do want to remind you though, that we have already voted on one trillion dollars of cuts, cuts that would cause great pain. i agree what you 100%. it can not be done. melissa: spending cutting numbers are even smaller than the tax numbers. they don't get us there either. i'm worried about stalling the economy. in the meantime when we talk about raising taxes and what it would do to small business. democrats like to point out we would only raise taxes on 3% of small business owners. >> right. melissa: but that 3% generates 50% of the income from small business. so they're hiring the majority of people. to me that is going to cost us jobs. >> well, you know what? i think that what will cost us jobs for sure is if we go off thissfiscal cliff, because it is not just about raising tacks. it is also about the debt ceiling. it is about unemployment insurance. we have number of key issues that absolutely have to be resolv
accomplish something. if you go back to before bush tax cuts, three quarters of the deficit is gone. it was supposed to sunset two years ago. when is a good time to let those things sunset? >> you're right, there's never a good time. >> maybe do something with the sequester, but let the tax cuts expire. >> although i have to say at this time it's too much i think in terms of the tax increase. >> we never want any pain. >> you're right. and we do need to get our fiscal house in order. but again, this is why the idea would be to come up with a longer term plan where you could scale some of these things in and you have to come up with a plan that you'll stick to, otherwise you get into this where -- >> we never stick to anything. if we get another deal that is toothless and -- >> the markets will become even more skeptical because we've seen this before. but i have to say two things. i don't necessarily buy into the deal that there's a fiscal slope. i have to say on the tax side, one of the things we keep talking about is the amt. boy, that's something that will -- >> howard goes on an
. the deficit is not the biggest problem in the country. the deficit is shrinking by hundreds of millions of dollars every year the president has been in office. to the extent we need to use debt to accomplish other goals, you may not like the idea in the abstract, but debt is cheaper now than it has been in a long time. focusing on the deficit is like arguing about the color you might paint your car while you're crashing that car into a tree. in washington the republicans are arguing about not a pretend problem but something that's a secondary problem. a problem that has no need to be the one problem we wreck everything else to solve. if you look at the real economy in the real world, outside of sunday morning, what the economy needs is stimulus. you don't need to take money out of the economy. you don't need to further contract the economy. you need to stimulate the economy. the economists who track this stuff already think we're not growing enough to get back to a healthy economy. they cut the estimate to how much we are growing. people are not making enough money and therefore, not sp
the deficit in the medium to long-term so as to avoid an immediate and dramatic cut in the short-term. yes, that's right. now, this may well present a problem for john boehner's caucus, because john boehner sent a letter to the president this week with his own plan, which advocates what just might be the least popular policy in american politics. okay, maybe that's hyperbole. but just be a tiny bit, i mean, mandatory gay marriage, in which every single married straight person had to immediately divorce their spouse, and accept a state-assigned same-gender spouse to replace them would probably be more popular than what john boehner proposed this week. what bjorn baijohn boehner is a is making medicare available to fewer americans. as it happens, there is brand-new polling out today on how americans feel about the idea of congress using these deficit negotiations to make cuts to medicare.รง 79% of americans say they do not want congress to touch medicare in these deficit negotiations. 79%. if you want to get specific about john boehner's proposal, what he wants to do to medicare is to raise
, we have a trillion dollar annual deficit and this would not close that gap at all. so the president needs to come up with a plan and for better or worse going to require leadership. no member of the senate or the house is going to be able to do this, this is something the president has to do by himself and he can't do it on the campaign trail. >> let me ask you this because you wrote an op-ed today and you wrote about divided government about the deal. you said divided government means that neither democrats nor republicans will be able to pass legislation along strictly partisan lines. we cannot tax our way back to budget surpluses and economic prosperity without major spending cuts and entitle 347b9 reforms we will continue running a huge deficit regardless of what anyone does on either side. for every dollar of revenue you give him, he'll give you $2.50 of spending cuts. if he gave you that on spending cuts, it would be 8$850 billon year would you do that? >> the president has said a lot of things, but what counts is what he's willing to put on the table and so far, he hasn't put
longer, has always been talking about a balanced approach to tackling the deficit. when he talks about balanced approach, he means tax revenue and cutting spending, however the only part of the conversation we're having is about tax revenue. no conversation whatsoever about the spending part of this equation. that's because he has no intention of cutting spending. >> sean: senator chambliss is clear, it's increasing revenue, getting more money from the american taxpayer. isn't that a tax? >> yes. what they fail to see or don't want to see or acknowledge this country doesn't have a revenue problem. there's plenty of revenue coming into the treasury. remember the "t" in tea party stands for tax enough already. we have a severe spending problem. before barack obama became president, sean, federal government spending was about 18%, 19% of gdp. barack obama and the democrats have pushed it up to 24% to 25%. >> we're talking about spending more money to artificially prop up the markets. the problem is, sean, republicans are using the word revenue rather than tax hikes. the national conversat
split right down the metal on the political ppll on how they want obama to cut the deficit. 41 percent responded in favor of spending cuts. 41 percent of respondents saying they favor tax increases. the white house says it will offer a counterproposal to house speaker proposal. saying that unless he accepts tax increases on the rich the president is willing to go over the cliff. let's get straight to the politics of these developments and the rhetoric and possible economic impact of failure to resolve the issues. joining as, former special assistant to president george w. bush, a veteran political consultants and republican pollster. let's start, if i may, with you. do you think both sides right now are seriously ready to go over the cliff? >> i think the president is very ready because they are reading into this election last month a mandate that i simply don't see. the president got 15 million americans to vote against him which fail to produce any type of meaningful budget in his democratic controlled senate. we are at the disco club because of the president's inability to ever a si
more deficit reduction if we do the fiscal cliff. i think the markets will reward the fiscal cliff over a period. there will be some panic and moaning and groaning, but first of all, the fiscal cliff is not a real cliff. it's a slope. and you're going to get the biggest bank for the buck in terms of deficit reduction. i think the economy can stand it. yes, we will go into two quarters of recession the cbo says, and i believe that. we're in deep trouble here. somebody's going to have to pay the bill. it's going to have to be all of us. >> joining me with more on all of this, patrick j. buick as well as former clinton special counsel davis. the president campaigns on $800 billion in new taxes. he now wants 1.6 trillion. he wants twice the amount, lanny. he wants a blank check and congress to give up its authority as it relates to money and say no, no, let me raise the debt ceiling any time i want. he wants 150 billion in new stimulus but no entitlement cuts at all, no spending cuts at all. now that sounds to me like somebody that's not serious. >> i don't know where to begin to correct so
as part of a long-term deficit reduction. if we don't ask higher income people to pay more, we're going to have to take it out on everybody else and the president is clear, you cannot continue to play political gains with the full faith and credit of the united states debt and so that was all part of the plan the president has put forward. >> now, with all of the talk of divide, politico is, however, reporting that there is some framework of a deal already taking shape. let me give you what they are saying. and the piece says, there is no chance taxes are not going to go up for people making north of $250,000 and virtually no chance that doesn't include their tax rates, too. is there a framework of a deal that you believe we can come together or are we still very much divided in terms of parties in the congress? >> well, i think it's premature to say that there's a deal in place. even the framework of a deal in place. but i agree with the politico reporting to the extent they concluded that higher income individuals are going to be paying more and that tax rates have to go up. because t
with a balanced approach. deficit reduction. >> after the president's remarks, spoik with his main man on the fiscal cliff, treasury secretary tim geithner. >> let me ask you, the reaction to your going up on the hill and saying this is basically the white house position has been -- mitch mcconnell saying i think it was just demeaning for them to ask the treasury secretary to come up here and give a proposal like this and by this we have people saying it's a sham, it's -- you know, ridiculous, it's a nonstarter. when you went up there, you didn't think republicans were going to go good idea. >> you know, what we're trying to do is get these guys to come together and reach an agreement that's going to be good for the country and good for the question xhe. >> by these guys you mean you all and the republicans. >> and democrats together. >> and the white house. >> that's what we're trying to do. what we did was put forward a very comprehensive, very carefully designed mix of savings and tax reforms to help us put us back on the path to stabilizing our debt and fixing our debt and living w
adds so much to the federal budget deficit. so republicans say raise the retirement age to 67 or means testing, meaning making more wealthy americans pay more into the system or get less out of the system. if you means test, that means you're paying less out to affluent americans. if you raise the retirement age, you're paying out less as money comes in and keeping the revenue line closer to the cost line. that is the goal. so when you do a 10 or 20-year calculation, medicare is not adding to the deficit. but that's the policy and just as republicans are having a backlash against the speaker saying we don't think we should put tax increases on the table, the democrats and some of the new members in congress, they say they ran promising not to touch medicare. so they say they won't do this. so you have the credibility challenge. republicans say give us entitlement and other spending cuts and the democrats want higher tax rates. that's why we have a stalemate. >>> an internet icon wanted in connection with the killing of his neighbor. stay with us, you're in "the situation room." that of
and its deficit. that's what we need. to try to slam the brakes right now and get to balance tomorrow is not desirable. economists will come on your show and tell you that that would not be good for the economy. so i think we're dealing with a degree of artificiality right there. >> congressman keith ellison, thanks for joining us. >> any time. thank you. >>> for more on this, let's bring in our cnn political contributor and republican strategist, mary matalin and cornel belcher, democratic strategist and pollster with the obama 2012 campaign. mary, what do you make of the details of this opening bid from the white house? republicans have already dismissed it but does it give us any clues at all about what an eventual deal might look like? >> it's reported that mitch mcconnell, senate minority leader, burst out laughing when he heard it. it's not even worthy of a laugh. it's really sad, it's pathetic. we went from a reasonable theoretical $3 in cuts for $1 in revenue which was basically the simpson-bowles, and are now at $4 of real and immediate tax increases plus new spending for in
to the middle class. then we can work in earnest together to reduce the deficit in a balanced way that will make sure we don't first throw the middle class under the bus. that whatever we put forward have spending cuts and revenue that is going to take care of the middle class and make sure that we have spending cuts and revenue that ensures that they're fair and that the math works. there has been no evidence thus far that the republicans are interested in doing that. >> this has been the perfect opportunity for them to step forward and show some leadership. the majority of americans do want this right now. congresswoman, the president has asked you to stay on as dnc chair. what is the way forward for the democrats? what's happening here? >> well, we need to continue to focus on rebuilding our economy from the middle class out. president obama talked eloquently and passionately during the campaign about making sure that we can get a handle on this deficit, that we can rebuild our economy from the middle class out, that we can focus on creating jobs and getting the economy turned around, and tha
in this particular conference which was elected to be a fiscally conservative and try to reduce the deficit. however, myself and members of our team were standing outside and talked to dozens of members and it does seem as though internally he didn't get an earful. they are very upset that the counteroffer includes $800 billion in new tack revenue but behind the scenes he's been able to hold the conference together and they are staying unified behind him in going forward with the process and the speaker was asked why that is. here's what he said. >> our members understand the seriousness of the situation that our country faces. trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see. $16 trillion worth of debt already on the books. every man, woman, and child owing the government over $50,000 and that number is increasing every single year. and i think as a result our members understand that we've got to solve the problem and we will. >> so the bottom line is it really seems obvious, especially after talking to members coming out of that meeting, that they have been able to at least so far turn the r
leaders. governors are concerned about the impact of deficit reduction measures on their state budgebu. the latest gop offer would overhaul the tax code, raise $800 billion in new revenue but seek $600 billion in health savings, net savings add up to about $2.2 trillion over ten years. boehner called the white house's original offer la la land and it does appear that even though at one point bowles endorsed a blueprint like this, he's trying to distance himself from it right now. >> the president got re-elected. he's claiming he got re-elected in part because he wants to tax that 2%. he cannot go back on that. in the meantime, congress most of the republicans signed the grover norquist pledge which says you cannot tax that 2% more than anybody else. you can't increase the taxes. so we're at a stalemate and someone has to give and i don't see anyone giving right now. >> bank of america today commented on the let's jump crowd. the bungee jump crowd for which they think is a scenario. >> you wonder how much of that is in negotiating position. embraced early on by senator schumer, new york
. >> do you briyou believe if you rote deficit -- two different ways. you either keep the government that you have and pay for it by raising taxes, or you kind of leave taxes where they are and you shrink government down to where it pays for it. does it matter for the future and for growth which way you do it in your view? >> it does. if you put it all into like a tightening, so how much tightening occurs in the economy that would slow the economy, it's far better to actually reduce government spending than it is to actually raise taxes. >> although that hurts the economy, too. >> everything hurts the economy. so it's a question of which is most -- or least harmful and that tends to be cutting government spending. >> but i do think it's -- >> although tim geithner would disagree with me. >> one side wants to keep the government and entitlements like we have it. and the other side wants to take away all the excess government -- >> i think both sides agree that you need to do both. just a question of how much. >> we need to do both to do a deal. i don't think both sides dwre that it's
's the federal deficit. it's the federal debt, which is a huge risk for national security. right now the defense department has taken, as i said, about can half a trillion dollars of deduction in the first round but the strategy aligns to the point we can meet national security objectives and still accomplish or make though cuts. if you start putting another half a trillion on top of, that you shatter the strategy. and then national security has to be free thought. i propose we need more of a fiscal stairstep reduction so that reductions can be made with strategy in mind. strategy and national security needs have got to be tweaked and done in concert. that's the way to do this. and i think in the end, you know, you're going to have to see reduction -- you're going to have to see more reductions in defense, but hopefully nowhere near the levels that the fiscal cliff and sequestration would impose. >> so, are employees expecting this? i mean, have you to be living under a rock not to see what's going on with the fiscal cliff, but are you planning on laying off employees if sequestration is trigger
offer a counter proposal on the fiscal cliff. their plan, $2.2 trillion deficit savings over the next decade, but it does not include higher tax rates for the wealthy. the house speaker john boehner calls it a credible plan that deserves serious consideration by the white house. guess what? the white house released a statement tonight saying the plan is nothing new, that it lowers rates for the wealthy and sticks the middle class with the bill. so to borrow a phrase, we're nowhere. period. david walker is president and ceo of comeback america initiative. he's made it his mission to promote fiscal responsibility. he joins us along with cnn political analyst, david gergen. the house republicans put forward their counter proposal. speaker boehner says it's credible and the white house should consider it. is it credible or is it more of what you have called the irresponsible unethical immoral behavior of all the politicians here in washington? >> i think both sides are now putting things on the table but i think they're confused. what we have to do in the short term is avoid the fiscal cl
to bring in a man who says president obama's plan would create jobs and cut the deficit. he's democratic congressman chris van hollen, maryland, ranking member of the house budget committee. welcome to you, sir. you said today -- >> good to be with you. >> good to be with you, too. we're in the fourth quarter as we approach the fiscal cliff. if we can deliver like rg iii delivers, we'll be doing well. the question i would ask is why the hell are we in the fourth quarter? why wasn't this done in the first quarter? >> well, piers, as you know, there were a number of efforts before the election to get this done and there were major differences between the parties, and those parties became a big part of the conversation during the presidential debate. the president could not have been clearer that he wanted to do two things. he wanted to boost economic growth by doing things like investing in our infrastructure which used to be a bipartisan idea, but also, extending middle class tax cuts and as you said, asking the wealthiest to pay a little bit more to reduce the deficit. that was part of t
and negotiations are about deficit reduction. president obama thinks they're about fairness. most americans, solid majority, want to see taxes raised on those upper income americans, even though only 19% think it will have much of an impact on deficits. it's not about the fiscal crisis. it's about fairness in the minds of most americans. president obama understands that and republicans don't. >> is that because in your polling day, i always thought that people favored spending reduction and favored smaller government. this may be a mistake that the gop has not emphasized spending cuts. >> they certainly do. most people -- two out of three people want to see a deal that includes both tax hikes and spending cuts. they want to see more spending cuts, but they don't expect spending cuts to come out of this no matter what happens. in fact, the one thing that most people in the middle class believe is that regardless of whether we go over the fiscal cliff or whether a deal is reached to avert that, middle class taxes are going up, and so is spending. so there's a lot of cynicism in this process. >> real
help in the push to reduce the deficit. the problem, stalled proposals to replace the expired program include billions of dollars in cuts to food stamps. the senate bill would shave $4.5 billion from the program over ten years. the house version would slash $16 billion over the same time period. the congressional budget office estimates the house bill would throw upwards of $3 million people off the food stamp roles and hundreds of thousands of children denied free school lunches. needless to say the cuts could not come at a worst time for recipients. as of august, 47 million people americans relied on food stamps to keep from going hungry up from 31 million just four years ago. joining me on set, the author of "the juice," and in the nation's capitol, cnbc's chief washington correspondent, john harwood. we have our sage of capitol hill luke russert on set here. you're holding it down in the nation's capital. in firms of the discussions of the fiscal cliff, the white house is focused solely on cuts for top earners. almost no discussion of unemployment insurance and payroll taxes, the
. and a $500 billion down payment on the deficit and the debt, i think, is actually a nice piece of certainty for business so that they can plan for 2013 and 2014. it will mean an exceedingly weak first quarter next year, but i think throughout the year economic growth will get stronger. david: well, but, michael, on the other hand, sometimes if i'm certain somebody's dead, that won't bring them back to life. sometimes certainty is not necessarily good news. you say that the market is rather than on the negative side rather than on the positive side, and if we do go over the fiscal cliff, you see possibility of negative figures as low as 4%, right? >> well, let's put all this in perspective. i think what i mentioned earlier was the fact that the s&p is up about 6% since november 16th, and we've run into technical resistance with some the previous people mentioned, and i think the market's just in a period now where it could easily pull back a little bit. if you listen to the rhetoric coming out of washington, we had the everybody gave your hugs after the election, now they're throwing out the
you're at a deficit on the latino and the african-american vote they have which isn't sizable but every vote counts. so, if you then toss out the fiscal conservatives, then you lose a lot of the oriented versions of the republicans. they're going to have to try to work in a coalition and i suspect it's probably going to be the fiscal side that ultimately the republicans waffle on because if you look demgraphically at african-american voters, they are less inclined to believe that absolute limited government works. i think the gop is going to have to go more towards a small government, economic populous message. >> as funny as it sounds, you were very clear about the ambiguity this week on redstate.com. you're not sure what republicans in congress stands for as it relates to fiscal issues. where would you like to see them go? >> i would like to see the gop be a limited government party. it makes the case that spending from washington doesn't actually help people. the younger voters actually think it does. the gop needs to make the case it doesn't. but, in particular, i think re
a budget, three years without a budget -- three years with a trillion dollar deficit. so we are talking about a problem that needs to be solved with massive spending cuts on the table. neil: i don't know what is really happening behind the scenes. but i do know that these overtures and hands that you get from the white house that the president is open and willing to consider spending cuts -- i don't know what the truth is. the other thing on this middle ground, the tax thing -- letting the difference of 37 or 38%. giving the appearance that there is a middle ground being found here, do you believe that? >> if you look at the middle ground and what is reported, they are giving specifics on taxes, but not stunning. they are saying that those tax cuts will happen 10 to 20 years from now. that is saying that congress at that time, 10 years from now, is going to agree with the spending cuts. listen, we are in this situation because coogress could not even agree on spending cuts your way when the sequester was going into effect and they failed as a super committee in november. they can't even
the business community views this deficit thing as the biggest problem that we can solve that we need to solve. there's something called a campaign to fix the debt, which i'm on the steering committee, 120 leading ceos from everything from general electric to jpmorgan on down. really committed to doing something and accepting the idea that revenues have to go up, not ideological about how, but most of all, wanting a big $4 trillion package. and so they have become, in effect, allies of the president. they're really trying to get to the same place. at some point there may be differences over how much entitlements, how much this or that, but right now their interests are aligned, and they both agreed to be friends again. and so they've spent a stream of business ceos into the white house. the president -- yesterday the business roundtable and gave a very warm and accommodating speech. and they are comrades in arms, the least for the time being. >> willie, what a big difference from what we heard from business leaders for the first four years. this is a pretty dramatic shift. >> or even just a fe
we have here, the real driver of budget deficits, the real threat to american economics, superiority in this world, out of control-- the president of the united states, the president for four yea years, no credible plan for tackling that spending. >> dave: there's been nothing put on paper when it comes to entitlements from the president one thing he's been afraid to do. now he's been reelected don't be afraid to face the voters. tack tackle entitlement and changes to survive. >> alisyn: isn't that the beauty of the second term. incumbency you're no longer bo ho holden to anyone. >> and that 1.6 trillion dollar. before 800 billion and now it's 1.6 trillion. maybe that's the second term speaking. >> alisyn: let's talk about what's going on with the christmas tree. as you know, it's christmas season and that means that there will be incidents where the p.c. police are out in force, checking and calling your tree, a holiday tree or a christmas tree and this has. this is brewing in massachusetts because the mayor of a small town, well, a city in massachusetts, a small river had invited r
how to deal with this deficit. it is all there, you know, in black and white. anybody can read that plan. it has entitlement cuts, it has, you know, cuts in various programs and so on. so they have been pretty specific about what they want. by the way, in the senate, there is no budget for three years. >> here's the thing -- >> but let me raise the other point. i think jessica had it not exactly right when she said the republicans haven't been specific about how they would be willing to raise taxes. what republicans are saying is we're willing to put a cap on deductions of $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, haven't been specific about the number, but that's a way to reduincrease the taxes o wealthier taxpayers but in a way that doesn't raise tax rates. that seems to be a big concession. >> i'm talking about negotiations. if the american people wanted paul ryan's plan, they would have voted for paul ryan. they didn't. they voted for compromise. and that's not happening. wouldn't the most direct way, the best way would be a counteroffer of some sort? with specifics? >> well, you know, do
path that only spending cuts will get them to deficit reduction, they can carry on believing that or get to a place where they're going to get re-elected. >> richard, i think the president is offering a great deal to the republicans. here's why. these guys can go home 98% and say, you know what, 98% of you, i got the tax cuts. i didn't raise your taxes. oh, by the way, my base, you wealthy folks over here, look what obama did to you. he raised your taxes. that's only going to infuriate the wealthy even more. the fact here is is that he has given them something they can campaign on plus they can turn around and say, these are his cuts to medicare, not ours. i don't now why they don't take this deal for the good of the country and come back and fight another day. >> to say democrats are not serious about entitlements, $400 billion of cuts to medicare is a cut to entitlements. that's going to mean hardship for seniors. that's a real cut. now, you can pretend like the hospitals are going to swallow all of that cost cut. they're not. they're going to pass that on. that means less
knows that we have this terrible problem with the debt and the deficit, the entitlement issues and the president doesn't want to address them. he simply wants congress to give him the power to raise taxes now on the top 2% of income and put off entitlement reform and spending reductions until later. we thought the whole campaign was about how you're going to fix the entitlement situation. instead, the president wants to put it off again. i mean, this can is going to be so big, you won't be able to kick it down the road. >> brian: the debility creeling i want the power, as the executive branch to raise the debt ceiling as high as i want it and i want more stimulus spending? look what he's proposing? $1.6 trillion in tax spending. $400 billion in unspecified medicare cuts. the doctors are going to love that. by the way, they say unspecified, that means unspecified, that means they don't exist. >> right. they won't exist. the president just wants to off, he wants all the power. and this is a constitutional issue that goes to the heart of the checks and balances system. congress ha
the wrong budget knows, if you have a deficit that means you have to bring in more rate comment and spend less. melissa: all we're ever talking about is raising taxes and nobody is talking about what we need to cut. the first thing you would do is stop spending. let's tighten our belts. regardless though you really think it is too late? i think they can come up with some solution that is held together with chicken wire and bubblegum and scotch tape and this little crummy thing that will keep us from going over the cliff pushing the whole problem off into the future. speak i think you have to treat two separate issues separately. one is avoiding the cliff, and i think the way to do that is to reach a short-term agreement on tax cut extensions. relatively optimistic they can get a long-term budget agreement done next year, but don't think they can do it in two weeks which is what the president thinks it's going to happen. if they separate the two issues and reach an agreement, that will onny be temporary. it is not like they're signing away their future in blood and worry about long-term ta
to pay down the deficit. >> let me give you an example of where i think it may make sense. let's take new jersey which has been too much harm very much by hurricane sandy. we do not happen to pay a lot for gasoline in new jersey because we have low state taxes. if it went to funding for the reparations from sandy, it may make sense. you cannot be dismissive of it in any case. melissa: tom kloza, always a smart card. this is the first time you are wrong. [ laughter ] i am just kidding. thank you for coming on. cheryl: what do you think it would cost to fuel of the batmobile? the batmobile said to hit the auction block january 19 in scottsdale arizona. a price for the classic wheels has been set. they have refused to reveal it. it is expected to be in the millions. it was originally built in italy before being modified here in the states. it features everything from a bulletproof bubble windshield -- melissa: i love, tom. he is a great guy. lori: you will have to find your own sidekick to be in the passenger seat. robin will not be included. [talking over each other] melissa: will republica
and deficit proposal over the last couple years. half trillion in tax increases or trillion and a half in tax increases, $600 billion in spending cuts, more spending, and a permanent increase in the debt ceiling. on fox news sunday, boehner called that deal a joke. >> just flabbergasted. i looked, and said, you can't be serious? i just never seen anything like it. we got seven weeks between election day and the end of the year. three of those weeks have been wasted with the nonsense. >> okay. you heard them, the first time in two decades now, acknowledge they want revenues up as the balanced plan, a good first steppedded, but they have to say what they do operates and revenues. that's hard for republicans. >> runs of billions of spending cuts, tax increases begin in less than a month, and with the negotiations, two sides are about where they started. still, aids say it's early to be moving to an agreement with plenty of time for each side to extract the best deal possible before selling it to the parties and selling position to voters. with that, president obama is hosting a twitter question-
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 53 (some duplicates have been removed)